S. MAHABOOB BASHAversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

                      [2014] 13 S.C.R. 1266


A                    S. MAHABOOB BASHA
                                 v.
                   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                (Criminal Appeal No. 2115 of2014)
B
                      SEPTEMBER 23, 2014
            [T. S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
        Penal Code, 1860 - s.498A - Conviction under, of
  appellant-husband by Courts below - Justification - Held:
C Justified - PW-1(complainantl victim) was subjected to
  cruelty by her husband (appellant) and also harassment to
  meet the unlawful demand of dowry- Essential ingredients
  of s.498A /PC were established - Prosecution adduced
  cogent evidence to prove that after his second marriage, the
D appellant was ill-treating PW-1 who had no reason to
  prosecute the appellant after ten years of marriage- On facts,
  interference with concurrent findings of fact by the courts
  below not warranted.
E       Sentence I Sentencing - Duty of the Court to pass
  appropriate sentence - Demand of dowry and harassment-
  Con vi c ti on uls. 498A /PC - On facts, sentence of
  imprisonment imposed on appellant-husband for conviction
  uls. 498A reduced to the period already undergone by him -
F Penal Code, 1860 - s.498A.
          Penal Code, 1860 - s. 498A - Cruelty to wife -
    Allegations of- Held: In such cases to bring home the guilt
    of the accused, it is not essential to examine independent
    witnesses - Witnesses -Appreciation of
G        Allowing the appeal, the Court
       HELD:1. Evidence adduced by the prosecution
  clearly proves that PW-1 (complainant/ victim) was
  subjected to cruelty by her husband (appellant) and also
H harassment to meet the unlawful demand of dowry and
                               1266
  S. MAHABOOB BASHA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA             1267


  the essential ingredients of Section 498A IPC are A
· established_. In cases of cruelty meted out to the wife to
  bring home the guilt of the accused, it is not essential to
  examine independent witnesses. Prosecution has
  adduced cogent evidence to prove that after his second
  marriage, the appellant was illtreating PW-1. PW-1 had B
  no reason to prosec\jte the appellant after ten years of
  marriage. [Paras 8, 9][1270-E-H; 1271-A-C]
       2. Interference by the Supreme Court with
 concurrent findings of fact by the courts below is not
 warranted, except where there is some serious infirmity C
 in the appreciation of evidence and the findings are
 perverse. In the case at hand, there is no infirmity in the
 concurrent findings of the courts below convicting the
 appellant under Section 498A IPC. [Para 10][1271-C-E]
                                                             D
       3. The conviction under Section 498A IPC where
 wife is subjected to cruelty, sentence imposed on the
 husband and in-laws should be commensurate with the
 charges and court should impose punishment befitting
 the offence. Considering the totality of the facts and E
 circumstances of the instant case, the sentence of
 imprisonment imposed on the appellant for conviction
 u/s. 498A IPC is reduced to the period already undergone
 by him and a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only)
 is imposed. [Para 11, 12][1272-C-D; 1271-G-H; 1272-A]
                                                               F
      Narsingh Prasad Singh v. Raj Kumar@Pappu &
      Ors., (2001) 4 SCC 522 - referred to.               ·r

                 CASE LAW REFERENCE
 (2001) 4 SCC 522          referred to         Para 11         G
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
 Appeal No. 2115of2014.                                            ...
     From the Judgment and Order dated 29.10.2013 in
 CRLRP No. 2148 of 2010 passed by the High Court of
 Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad.                 H
1268         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 13 S.C.R.


 A          Shiv Prakash Pandey, Ms. Rekha Pandey, Advs. for the
       Appellant.
            V. N. Raghupathy,Adv. for the Respondent.
            Thi~ Judgment of the Court was delivered by

 B          R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted.
        2. This appeal arises out of the Order of the Karnataka
  High Court in Crl. R. P. No. 2148 of 2010 dated 29.10.2013,
  confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 498A
C IPC and reducing the sentence of imprisonment of one year to
  six months and enhancing the fine amount from Rs.3000/-to
  Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment
  for two months.
           3. Brief facts of the case are that, the appellant-first
o accused is the husband of PW-1, Smt. Noorunnisa and their
     marriage was solemnized on 06.02.1994 and the couple has
     two daughters and one son. Sometime after the marriage,
     accused No.1 started physically torturing PW-1, and subjected
     her to cruelty by assaulting her and demanded/dowry of Rs.
E    50,000/- or a house from her parents. On 25.05.2001, at about
     9.30 p.m., when PW-1 was in the house situated at Gandhi
     Nagar, Bellary, the appellant abused PW-1 and her father PW-
     2 in filthy language and appellant pushed PW-2 and voluntarily
     caused simple hurt to him. Father of the appellant-accused
F    No.2 is alleged to have committed criminal intimidation py
     threatening PW-2 with dire consequences. At the time of
     marriage of appellant and PW-1, the appellant and Accused
     No.2-father of the appellant are said to have accepted dowry
     of Rs.50,000/-, gold, silver, clothes etc. and further alleged to
G    have harassed PW-1 demanding more dowry from her parents.
     On the complaint lodged by PW-1, case was registered
     against the appellant and his father under Sections 498A, 323,
     504, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4
     of Dowry Prohibition Act. On completion of the investigation,
H    charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and his father.
 S. MAHABOOB BASHA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA                        1269
              [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

      4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the A
prosecution has examined 17 witnesses - PW-1 to PW-17
and marked documents Exts. P1 to P11. The accused were
questioned under Section 313 Cr. P. C. about the incriminating
evid.ence and they denied all of them. Upon consideration of
the evidence, the trial court convicted the appellant and his B
father for various offences and imposed imprisonment/fine as
under:-
       Accused.          Conviction      Sentence/Fine imposed

    Appellant/Al &
   2nc1 Accused      . Sec. 498A IPC     One Year SI (each)
                                         & Rs.3,000/· Fine (each)
                                                                    c
    Appellant/Al &     Sec. 323 and      Rs.500/· & Rs.500/·
   2nd Accused         504 IPC           (each)

    Appellant/Al &     Sec. 506 IPC      Six months SI (each) &
   2nd Accused                           Rs.500/· (each)             D
    Appellant/Al &     Sec. 3 and        Six months SI (each)
   2nd Accused         Sec.4 of Dowry
                       Prohibition Act
     Total fine amount of Rs.9,000/-was ordered to be paid
as compensation to the complainant.                                  E
      5. Being aggrieved, the appellant and his father S. Vali
Sab preferred appeal before the Additional District and
Sessions Court, Bellary (Fast Track Court-I). The appellate
court set aside the conviction of appellant's father S. Vali Sab
and acquitted him of all the charges. The conviction of the F
appellant-accused No.1 for the offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act and sentence of imprisonment and fine
imposed on him was confirmed: Being aggr_ieved, the
appellant preferred criminal revision before the High Court. G
The High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant
under Section 498A IPC and reduced the sentence of
imprisonment of one year to six months and enhanced the fine
to Rs.10,000/-. The High Court acquitted the appellant of the
charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. H
1270         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 13 S.C.R.


 A        6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
   appellant and the complainant led peaceful and harmonious
   life and the couple are having two daughters and one son and
   the charges of ill-treatment to the complainant-wife are false
   and concocted, such allegations being made only out of anger
 B and frustration, as the appellant had married second time in
   the year 2001 and was living with his second wife. It was further
   submitted that the trial court convicted the appellant only on
   the basis of the evidence of PW-1(wife), P.W-2 (younger
   brother), PW-4 (mother of PW-1) and other interested
 C witnesses and their evidence do not inspire confidence of the
   court and the learned courts below ought not to have based
   the conviction on such interested testimony.
         7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted
   that the courts below recorded concurrent findings as to the
 D guilt of the appellant and the same do not suffer from any
   infirmity warranting interference by this Court.
             8. PW-1-complainant/victim and PW-2- brother of the
       complainant, PW-4- Mother of PW-1 have categorically
 E     spoken about the demand of dowry and harassment meted
       out to the complainant. Evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4
       clearly establish that the appellant-first accused harassed the
       complainant rPW-1), causing mental agony to her. Evidence
       adduced by the prosecution clearly proves that PW-1 was
 F     subjected to cruelty by her husband and also harassment to
       meet the unlawful demand of dowry and the essential
       ingredients of Section 498A IPC are established.
         9. It is brought on evidence that the appellant-first accused
   married second time and has begotten three children through
 G his second wife and on account of his second marriage,
   differences arose between the spouses and the appellant-first
   accused ill-treated PW-1. In cases of cruelty meted out to the
   wife to bring home the guilt of the accused, it is not essential
   to examine independent witnesses. As pointed out by the High
 H Court, the offence of ill-treatment, cruelty to the wife are
 S. MAHABOOB BASHA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA                 1271
              [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

committed in closed-door, where we can·hardly expect any A
witness, much less independent witness. While deciding
whether a woman was ill-treated by her husband or his relatives,
various factors and circumstances are to be considered by
the courts. The demand of dowry, physical or mental, cruelty
shown towards wife, conduct of the husband and also the B
conduct of the relatives, conduct complained of are all relevant.
Prosecution has adduced cogent evidence to prove that after
his second marriage the appellant was illtreating PW-1. PW-
 1 had no reason to prosecute her husband-appellant after ten
years of marriage. As pointed out by the learned courts below, c
 PW-1 was subjected to thorough cross-examination and
 despite the same, nothing was elicited from her to discredit
 her testimony.
       10. Interference by the Supreme Court with concurrent
findings of fact by the courts below is not warranted, except D
where there is some serious infirmity in the appreciation of.
evidence and the findings are perverse. We see no infirmity
in the concurrent findings of the learned courts below convicting
the appellant under Section 498A IPC. Insofar as
conviction of the appellant under Sections 323 and 504 IPC is E
concerned, only fine was imposed on him. Insofar as the
conviction under Section 506 IPC, the appellant was sentenced
to undergo SI for six months by the trial court and the same
was confirmed by the appellate court. The judgment of the High
Court is silent about the conviction of the appellant under F
 Section 506 IPC as confirmed by the appellate court and the
 sentence imposed on him for the said offence.
       11. Coming to the quantum of sentence imposed on the
appellant, the question of awarding sentence is a matter of
discretion of the court and is to be exercised on consideration G
of facts and circumstances of each case. The conviction under
Section 498A IPC where wife is subjected to cruelty, sentence
imposed on the husband and in-laws should be commensurate
with the charges and court should impose punishment befitting H
1272        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014) 13 S.C.R.


 A the offence. In Narsingh Prasad Singh vs. Raj Kumar@
   Pappu & Ors. (2001) 4 SCC 522, this Court emphasized that
   in case of conviction under Section 498A, it is the duty of the
   court to pass appropriate order of sentence.
         12. The accused-appellant had remarried and has three
B children through his second wife, who are to be educated. The
   appellant through his first wife has two daughters and one son
   and one daughter is said to be pursuing engineering course.
   The appellant has to take care of his aged parents. The
   appellant has undergone sentence of imprisonment for about
C one month and the appellant is presently on bail. Considering
   the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the
   sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant for
   conviction under Section 498A IPC is reduced to the period
   already undergone by him and a fine of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees
D two lakh only) is imposed, in default of payment of fine, the
   ~ppellant is to undergo imprisonment for five months. Insofar
   as the conviction of the appellant under Section 506 IPC, he
  was sentenced to undergo SI for six months and it is reduced
  to the period already undergone and the same is ordered to
E run concurrently. The fine amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is payable
  in two instalments. Rs.1,00,000/- is payable within four months
  from today and remaining Rs, 1, 00, 0001- within six months
  thereafter. In default of payment of any one instalment of the
  amount, the appellant is to undergo the imprisonment as
F aforesaid. The fine amount of Rs.2,00,000/- shall be paid to
  PW-1, Noorunnisa as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C.
  We direct the trial court/Principal Judicial Magistrate First
  Class, Bellary to issue notice to PW-1 Noorunissa, as and
  when the instalments are deposited and disburse the amount
G to PW-1 Noorunissa.
         13. The sentence of imprisonment imposed on the
    appellant is modified and the appeal is allowed accordingly.

    Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                            Appeal allowed.